The Court of Appeal has labelled former Greymouth Petroleum executive John Sturgess' application to liquidate the company an attempt to "extort the highest amount" for his shareholding.

But his lawyer has denied Sturgess was the "wrongdoer" in the oil and gas exploration company's collapse from being prosperous to dysfunctional in less than 10 years.

The High Court ruled last year that Sturgess, the chief operating officer, must sell his 14 per cent stake in Greymouth Petroleum, one of Taranaki's most active oil and gas exploration businesses.

His stake would be valued by arbitration next month, but could be highly lucrative, perhaps as much as $90 million, based on earlier reports that Canada's Tag Oil made a $650 million bid in 2012 for total control of Greymouth Petroleum.

There were also attempts to sell the company to Canadian methanol giant Methanex in 2011.

Sturgess was blamed by the High Court for the breakdown between directors and forced to sell his shareholding, after he had sought an order for the full sale of the company.

Greymouth Petroleum chief executive Mark Dunphy held 52 per cent while Auckland rich-list investor Peter Masfen, who made $202m after leading Montana Wines to international success, owned the remaining 34 per cent.

All three were present at yesterday's Court of Appeal hearing.

Sturgess was stood down by his fellow directors in February 2011, accused of breaching his director's duties and leading Greymouth Petroleum towards a potential crisis.

The High Court found Sturgess should take "primary responsibility" for destroying the trust essential to his working relationship with Dunphy and Masfen, ordering that he sell his shares at fair market value.

But in an appeal yesterday Sturgess sought a liquidation order for Greymouth, allowing for 30 days beforehand so that the parties could negotiate on the exit price.

Sturgess was also broadly appealing findings made against him for breaches of reporting obligations and negligence.

His lawyer, Felix Geiringer, said Sturgess' actions had been the "symptoms" rather than the "cause" of Greymouth's dysfunction.

Court of Appeal judges Justice Tony Randerson and Justice Forrest Miller, however, said the issue was now about remedy and liquidation would be "difficult" with "not a lot going for it".

Justice Miller said the essential argument was over what price would be paid for Sturgess' shares, with liquidation being a "nuclear option".

"He doesn't want the company wound up at all, what he wants is 30 days to extort the highest amount.